Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved and horribly misgoverned Republic, the DiploMad returns to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.

Featured Post

We live in a time of government by con men, women, and those of flexible and reassignable gender. In the last few days this bitter truth ha...

Monday, October 10, 2016

The Rock is Overturned

I spent most of my life in what was once called the underdeveloped world, then it became the more politically correct Third World; I don't know what it's called now. I guess Third World is still an au courant phrase? Social Justice Warriors please correct me, and my apologies if by employing my white privileged vocabulary and labelling I have triggered anyone to retreat into his/her/ze/zir/its safe space.

Reading and listening to the reactions to last night's debate. Many of them are quite weird, well, until one realizes what is actually taking place. Let me explain in my usual stumbly, wordy, inarticulate way. We have a whole school of pundits who feign annoyance or contempt for the debate, with phrases such as "I don't know who won, but I know who lost, America." Lots of spurious fact-checking of everything Trump said with little of what Clinton said. We have some more Republican defections, e.g., Paul Ryan, who are adopting a holier-than-thou approach and refuse to support the Republican candidate--which makes me wonder why bother having a primary process? We have people for whom I once had respect, such as the two Bush Presidents and Mitt Romney, saying they will not vote for Trump, with some of them saying they will vote for Hillary Clinton. Ryan and other Republican congressional sorts, have hit on the strategy of keeping the Congress in Republican hands while ceding the White House to the Clinton Crime Family. It is sort of the Alamo ploy which we saw in the movie "Saving Private Ryan" in which any survivor of the initial battle is to retreat to a designated building and from there blow-up the bridge to halt the German counter-attack.

Yeah, sure, we all know how the original Alamo story ended. Lot of bravery and sacrifice, but in the end Santa Anna's troops poured over and through the walls.

We had a GOP-controlled Congress for most of the Obama misadministration's years in power. What did that get us? Did it slow down the attack of the progressives? Did we repeal Obamacare? Did we put honorable and honest people into key positions such as SecState and Attorney General? Did this Republican control prevent the willful and ongoing destruction of the world's greatest military machine via spending cuts and--even more destructive--the forcing of political correctness on our warriors? Have we named people to the Supreme Court who will actually adhere to the document? Did it secure our borders and repair our broken immigration system? Did we stop deficit spending and halt the growth of the public debt? Do you trust Ryan, et al, to do in the next four to eight years what they didn't do in the past six or so years in which they controlled the Congress? I know my answer.

You know, now that I think about it, it's not really an Alamo strategy, at all. It's more of General Petain and Vichy strategy. It is more of a hope that the crocodile will eat you last "strategy." In fact, it's more of a Quisling strategy; we will have some nominal power, we will keep our nice salaries and lobbyist sinecures, and we'll be fine.

Hillary Clinton at the debate last night referred to the "Trump Effect." This supposedly is one in which teachers report an increase in bullying and general nastiness. Trump is being blamed for the coarsening of dialog in the public square. All nonsense, of course. We have Hollywood stars who make a living out of coarseness and the glorification of gangsta culture and perversion all up in arms because Trump--who was once one of them--used some bad language.

The real Trump Effect is actually quite different. It is similar to the LePenn Effect in France or the Farage Effect in the UK. Trump, for all his flaws, has unleashed a force made up of people fed up with watching our country become a Third World souk, of watching all standards and definitions torn up and replaced by God-knows what gibberish coming out of the universities and the media. Above all I think we see large chunks of the American people gradually realize that our great nation has become a place where the elite have one set of standards and laws and benefits, and the rest of us something else quite different. The elite get armed guards and walls, we get speeches about tolerance and welcoming others. We are told that our country is evil and that the elite know what is best to address that evil--and, of course, that requires that we give up our money, and our God-given rights so that the evil we have caused can be redressed. We have to become the Third World.

Trump, win or lose, and the system is in top gear to make sure he doesn't win the White House, has changed the country. I think he has highlighted the great divide not so much between rich and poor, but between the arrogant Washington-New York-Los Angeles elite and the working people of the country, the producers of the wealth upon which all the system depends. He has turned over the rock and the insects and worms are crawling out.

OK, I am going to stop. I am depressing myself, and have bathrooms to clean, etc., because the Diplowife returns tomorrow. And I fear her wrath . . .

33 comments:

I have adopted a new and quite effective strategy to deal with the problems of keeping the house clean while the wife and daughter travel overseas.

1. Drop them at the airport and wave goodbye;

2. Return home and clean the house to the return inspection standard;

3. Move out until the night before they return.

It has drawbacks, but I find it generally effective.

On the larger issue; there seems to be delusion at large in the political establishment (GOP & DNC) that if they combine to defeat Trump, and survive what they assume will be short-lived post election storm, that they will be able to return to the comfortable insider power sharing arrangement that has delivered wealth and privilege to them and their enablers. Not surprising, I guess, given that they have been progressively and blatantly working the system in the service of their own interests for quite some time, and largely getting away with it.

Maybe I am wrong, but there is mounting evidence that the eyes of the victims of the progressive policies have been somewhat opened (probably by the sheer weight of the negative outcomes impacting their lives) and the consent of the governed might, in the future, be somewhat harder to come-by. I also think Farage is correct when he says that the pollsters really don't understand how to reach and measure the previously disengaged people who have recently decided that they need to vote to at the least try to change the current trajectory, and make some personnel changes. Brexit has shown the way, and given those people a reason to believe that if enough of them show up fighting back can work.

Short Point; I agree with you. Trump is a classic disruptor who has unleashed the most powerful force in nature, an idea backed by a little belief. W. Edwards Deming famously said "It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory". The progressives have put a lot of people into a corner where they, rightly or wrongly, perceive a threat to their way of life, and many of them seem to now understand that they need to be the agents of change if they want to survive.

Nice to see a mention for W. Edwards Deming. Too bad we didn't pay more attention to his teachings.

You want to know the truly funny part of the debate? I haven't really seen anyone talk about it. It's when Trump asked Hillary why she didn't put some of her own money into her own campaign. Her expression was priceless.

"We had a GOP-controlled Congress for most of the Obama misadministration's years in power. What did that get us?"

Nothing ! Here is a comment i posted over at Chicagoboyz.

I’m reading an interesting book titled “Flames in the Field” a book about the SOE in World War II. I have read other books about it but this one has an interesting insight that applies to the election today.

Page 43: "Early British agents were seduced by “carte (Girard’s code name) and his handful of associates because they seemed “people like us.”

The early agents, who were quickly betrayed and captured, tended to be intellectuals and artists. The French who betrayed them were quite similar. And unreliable.

"They felt no such affinity for those like the trade unionists who would later prove to be far more dependable allies but who were looked on with some suspicion in the early days as hardly suitable for the enterprise."

Does that sound familiar in the world of Donald Trump? Paul Ryan anyone ?

Paul Ryan is a gifted speaker and a disappointing actor. Obummer, the same. Hellary (almost) the same. Do we see a pattern developing? Perhaps these days silver tongues mean that their feet must be of clay.

You are correct that Mr Trump's candidacy has changed the future. Win or lose in this election, Mr Trump's passionate attachment to reality "has unleashed a force". How it all plays out may take decades, but just knowing that, gives me good hope that somewhere down the long road, God willing, rational thought will take the reins again.

I dunno.. from the look of the polls, Trump's very much behind the game.I always assumed Trump has some late-game strategy. He knew who he was going to face, and he knew he faced some big challenges. I couldn't imagine he would get into this without some sort of big reveal in his back pocket that would bring Clinton off into the mud.I would've thought he has better things to do with his time than take a risky gamble on an election. (And commensurately, that he wouldn't jump in unless he knew he could excise that risk.)Personally, I was hoping he knew what original, uninventoried documents Sandy Berger removed from the national archives, almost certainly on Clinton's behalf. It cost him a misdemeanor plea, his law license, and a ton of other stuff. He didn't do it for no reason.

About the polls. I don't know. In 2012 we had the fad of "unscrewing" the polls to eliminate the progressive bias. There might be some of that this time, too, and I think there is (small) percentage of unrecorded Trump votes that MIGHT make a difference in a close race. Canceling those out, however, is the electoral fraud by the Dems and their pretty well organized get out the vote drives. So, I don't know. I am hopeful but not optimistic.

Here's the problem, Sr. DiploMad: A Republican Senate with a less-than 67-seat majority couldn't overpower Obama. The House passed bill after bill to repeal or at least adjust Obamacare, for example, but faced with the double-whammy of a Senate filibuster or presidential veto, nothing much could get accomplished. Democrats voting in lockstep made sure of that.

But at least the GOP made the effort, even if it was doomed from the start.

The hostility expressed toward the Republican leadership by some Trump supporters is misdirected. Imagine, instead, what would gave happened if the Democrats had full control of the process, as they did for the two years after the 2008 election. Thanks to the GOP -- and the American voters -- a lot of really bad sh!t never came to pass after those two horrible years were in the rear-view mirror.

I realize the comments section of your blog is considered a "safe space" by some of Trump supporters, but when political purity goes up against the facts on the ground, the facts always win.

And while Dilbert creator Scott Adams (whose blog is a must-read) is still convinced Trump will win, at this point I think that's the kind of delusion the pointy-haired boss experiences every day. There's still plenty of time for things to change in this crazy year, of course, but I suspect that while a majority of voters think neither candidate is fit to president, a slight preponderance of them prefers a criminal over a loose cannon.

I'm not one of them, but I understand.

Considering the fervor of Trump's hard-core supporters, I wish they would form their own party instead of hijacking the GOP, taking it on yearlong joyride, and then setting it on fire. If Hillary wins, we'll need the GOP more than ever, with or without Trump.

If the GOP can't hold both houses of Congress in November, let's hope it keeps at least one of them. That's all that stands between us and 2008-10 all over again.

We don't need the GOP. What we need is a party of opposition. It's interesting how the Dems had no problems actually doing things under the conditions that the Repubs now have. We are led by stupid people.

Paul Ryan has had majorities in both houses for two years. Why did he continue the Harry Reid tactic of "Continuing Resolution" when he could have returned to "Regular Order" and had 12 Appropriations bills debated and passed. Obama would have had to veto 12 bills to shut down the government. Maybe he would have been arrogant enough to do so but it would have been pretty obvious to all why he was doing it.

Reid did it to spare his Democrat Senators controversial votes. Why would Ryan do it ?

I think Trump has an excellent chance. I think you are too far into the liberal media's (groupthink). Fake polls, dishonest Media...etc.There are a LOT of angry people. Also, if the Republican party IS rotten, and it's proving that Lifelong Policians of either stripe care more about themselves than the nation....Then let it BURN. Screw the Republican party and screw the Democrat one too.Back to our roots.No more pay to play or pravda as truth.leaperman

About the Senate. Mitch McConnell has and uses his large stockpile of white flags.

There is little evidence to back Ryan's belief that a majority Congress will impede Clinton. It certainly failed as an opposition party to Obama.

And,although I can't cite it at the moment, it was not too long ago that Paul Ryan said essentially without the Executive there is only so much we can do.

If nothing else, Paul Ryan should know that you fight with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. Trump and Ryan have two different visions for America. I prefer Mr. Trump's Make America Great Again over Mr. Ryan's Uni Party.

Your right about a "great movement a foot. I think of Trump as a catalyst more than an initiator. The "Alamo effect" of which you speak is more appropriate to the Democrats than the Republicans. As far as the Republicans go I'll paraphrase PJO, Democrats believe government can do everything for you, while Republicans believe government is broken and do anything and they occasionally get elected and prove the point. The days of the old GOP are over what comes now, perhaps a reprise of "Roundheads vs Royalists", I don't know.James the Lesser

The parallels to the decade before the Civil War are striking. If we see Trump as the start of the Republican party which replaced the Whigs, then he won't be elected but will have caused a new party to form. But that means that Hillary is our Buchanan, and after Buchanan came the Civil War. As Mark Twain is quoted as saying, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."Billhttp://billkeezer.net/billscomments/

Look, for my entire adult life I have heard Republican elites tell me that illegal alien felons would be deported so that they stop preying on American citizens. The fact that this hasn't happened is obvious.Along comes Trump who, as I find him vulgar, says he will do something about this.Being an upper middle class American, who has suffered discrimination along the way (we think you are qualified but, we are waiting for our Hispanic friend to graduate...) We moved on.As has the country, while tens of thousands of people that have no relationship to our culture are welcomed in on the taxpayers dole. We are told to shut up and accept the burden placed on local municipalities because of "tolerance."This is nothing more than replacing the demographics of the nation.

Pence made the point well at liberty university today: It's our duty to choose the best candidate, not try to make our decision on the merits/flaws of a single candidate. That's why I view efforts like 'never Trump' as pointless and stupid.

It would be lovely if we had the inverse problem, where we had two such wonderful candidates that people were committing themselves foolhardily without evaluating the wonderful qualities of the competition, but they would be equally wrong to do so, imo.

Yes, there is certainly someone out there whom I would not vote for in favor of Clinton... Obama and Kerry come to mind as likely candidates. But Trump isn't one of them. Maybe someone's bar is higher. Maybe someone would vote for Obama or Kerry over Hillary, I don't know. But the point is that the decision can't be made in the vacuum of one candidate, which is what all my trump-hater friends have decided to do. They don't *need* to hear about the unending list of Hillary scandals, because they've simply lost their objectivity by Trump.

Well the NYT has finally found someone to reprise the role of Anita Hill in their latest attempt to destroy Trump and deliver the election to HC; and well timed to drown out the appalling revelations against the clintons and the DNC from the latest Wikileaks release. Whatever the rights and wrongs I just cannot recall in my lifetime the media going so feral to get what they want. It is so over the top I do wonder whether it will cause a backlash.

After reflection I think this will finish Trump's chances. By the time anyone gets to the truth of allegations, the election will be over and Clinton in the White House. The media have shown that it is no longer possible to defy their wishes; they will dredge and furrow for the fatal fact, and if they can't find it then an untruth will do.

About Me

W. Lewis Amselem, long time US Foreign Service Officer; now retired; served all over the world and under all sorts of conditions. Convinced the State Department needs to be drastically slashed and reformed so that it will no longer pose a threat to the national interests of the United States.